|
I've had enough of these experts. edit: USNS Hughes Glomar Explorer (T-AG-193), was a deep-sea drillship platform initially built for the United States Central Intelligence Agency Special Activities Division secret operation Project Azorian to recover the sunken Soviet submarine K-129, lost during April 1968. If only something similar could have been devised to rescue the stricken submariners of the Kursk. TomViolence fucked around with this message at 22:01 on Oct 31, 2016 |
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 15:46 |
|
|
I'm a student: I just learned that 'student' and 'expert' are synonyms.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 22:01
|
|
|
TomViolence posted:Isn't everything studied by students? sure if you want to get tautological about it
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
Ancient Greek pederasty and the sufragette movement are similar in that they're both studied by students yet neither have any application to people's everyday lives now or at any point in the future. Where they differ is that you don't get tory MPs agitating for the rights of disenfranchised women to vote. Bloody students, what won't they study?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 22:13
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:People sometimes make puerile stupid objections This. for everyone using trident
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
Knowledge is good for knowledge's sake, flaps hth
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
Miftan posted:Knowledge is good for knowledge's sake, flaps hth When did I suggest I believe otherwise?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Feudalism and Anarchism are similar in that they're both studied by students yet neither have any application to people's every day lives now or at any point in the future. No direct application therefore not worth studying is what you're implying here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 22:23
|
|
|
So, I've seem to lost the plot here. Who here's an Anarchist? Show of hands, please.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 22:25
|
|
|
Miftan posted:No direct application therefore not worth studying is what you're implying here. That's silly. Lots of things are worth studying without any direct application.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
thetoughestbean posted:So, I've seem to lost the plot here. Who here's an Anarchist? Show of hands, please. e: Wasn't one of Ober's coworkers a feudal communalist or something?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:I'm a feudal Lord. You spelled poo poo wrong.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
thetoughestbean posted:So, I've seem to lost the plot here. Who here's an Anarchist? Show of hands, please. Don't take the bait guys, it's how they get you. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
Didn't realise GCHQ workers were allowed to post here? Do we turn you into PREVENT or what? ^ gently caress Pissflaps posted:That's silly. Lots of things are worth studying without any direct application. Such as Anarchism and Feudalism?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
thetoughestbean posted:So, I've seem to lost the plot here. Who here's an Anarchist? Show of hands, please. thetoughestbean posted:
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 23:02
|
|
|
TomViolence posted:students? XMNN posted:intellectuals
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 23:05
|
|
|
thetoughestbean posted:So, I've seem to lost the plot here. Who here's an Anarchist? Show of hands, please. Not sure if it counts, but I'm currently reading The Conquest of Bread by Kropotkin. So far it's pretty good, and I occasionally find myself nodding along. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 23:07
|
|
|
YA GOT ME But, seriously, left-wing anarchism seems a bit... I don't know, strange? How can you enforce your left-wing views and policies if you don't have a government to back it up? That being said, I am legitimately ignorant on left-wing anarchism. I'm an American, we mostly only have the batshit libertarian strain.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 23:17
|
|
|
Pretty sure half the point is that it's not enforced.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 23:18
|
|
|
thetoughestbean posted:YA GOT ME I think the key point is that you don't enforce your views. You're supposed to convince people of them through rhetoric and results.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 23:21
|
|
|
tooterfish posted:Pfft. Sounds like a serious disagreement; let's see what my good friend Mao Tse-Tung had to say about students versus intellectuals.... Renaissance Robot posted:Pretty sure half the point is that it's not enforced. Anarchists are fine creating defensive structures against aggressive non-anarchist forces but these structures naturally have to be full of anarchists and that can be a sticking point.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 23:22
|
|
|
Above is correct. You use education and work toward the betterment of mankind together because it's legitimately in everyone's best interest. This is done without forcing anybody to do anything but rather by persuasion.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 23:22
|
|
|
ThaumPenguin posted:I think the key point is that you don't enforce your views. You're supposed to convince people of them through rhetoric and results. That seems. Hmmm. How do you get assholes to pay taxes then? EDIT: Or like, have a justice system? I'm not really sure this takes human nature into account.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 23:23
|
|
|
thetoughestbean posted:So, I've seem to lost the plot here. Who here's an Anarchist? Show of hands, please. I used to be pretty much an an anarcho-syndicalist when I was younger and I still think it's a better approach than traditional communism though now I'm more of just democratic socialist. I knew a lot of anarchists when I squatted some of them are cool, very political guys, a lot more were still cool but crackheads. All were into Leftover Crack which is drat good music.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 23:26
|
|
|
thetoughestbean posted:That seems. Hmmm. How do you get assholes to pay taxes then? Is this a bad troll? Come on dude.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 23:27
|
|
|
The liberties enjoyed through collective, non-coercive society are worth the price of its maintenance. If you disagree you can leave. Free riders are a necessary burden of this philosophy but in my view will always be disciplined by social scorn.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 23:29
|
|
|
I think part of the idea in the long run is once you've made rent, usury, and land monopoly about as socially acceptable as publicly stating you're a pedophile and love loving kids, there won't really be that much that needs tax paying on it. It's something that comes up for debate a lot in anarchist philosophy, but the concerns that it won't be perfect all have their reflection in statist (in the original meaning, not American libertarians yelling at the mailman) methods. e.g. "How can you enforce your left-wing views and policies if you don't have a government to back it up?" has a parallel in "Once you've empowered a strong government to propagate left wing views, how can you be sure that they don't just turn around and enact policies that increase their own power?" as in many tinpot dictatorships. Or "How can you collect taxes from assholes" having the parallel of "how can you collect taxes when the most powerful can just buy the revenuers and politicians?" as in Europe.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 23:29
|
|
|
thetoughestbean posted:That seems. Hmmm. How do you get assholes to pay taxes then? There are no taxes. From what I've read, left-wing anarchism is fundamentally communist in the old fashioned sense of the word. That is to say, it argues for a stateless, classless, and moneyless society primarily based on a gift economy and direct democracy. Hard to pay taxes without currency or private property.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 23:29
|
|
|
Anarchism is just a form of collective social organisation that rejects hierarchy. The idea that an anarchist society necessitates a power vacuum or a lawless and disordered situation where the strong prey upon the weak gets a lot of currency because people often fundamentally misunderstand what the world would look like without their masters. Anarchism is about the dissolution of arbitrary and harmful power structures, so a self-organised society of that type could still have a rule of law and even some form of the social contract, but one which has been radically revised. The "human nature" non-argument gets tossed out a lot, but if you don't trust your fellow man to rule himself why on earth do you trust him to rule over others or pick others to rule over him? If "human nature" is as venal and hateful and greedy as people seem to believe, then anarchism cannot be any worse than the status quo in that regard.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 23:32
|
|
|
namesake posted:Anarchists are fine creating defensive structures against aggressive non-anarchist forces but these structures naturally have to be full of anarchists and that can be a sticking point. In the sense that anarchists naturally aren't going to deal well with the strict hierarchy etc that's sort of required for an effective fighting force, or did you mean something else?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 23:33
|
|
|
TomViolence posted:The "human nature" non-argument gets tossed out a lot, but if you don't trust your fellow man to rule himself why on earth do you trust him to rule over others or pick others to rule over him? If "human nature" is as venal and hateful and greedy as people seem to believe, then anarchism cannot be any worse than the status quo in that regard. At least Anarchism doesn't explicitly reward greed and cruelty, unlike certain other systems. e: I'm still not fully convinced on anarchism myself, but I'll keep reading CoB, as it's fairly interesting. ThaumPenguin fucked around with this message at 23:36 on Oct 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 23:33
|
|
|
ThaumPenguin posted:At least Anarchism doesn't explicitly reward greed and cruelty, unlike certain other systems. Except that greedy and cruel people who attain power become the de facto state no matter what you call it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
Renaissance Robot posted:In the sense that anarchists naturally aren't going to deal well with the strict hierarchy etc that's sort of required for an effective fighting force, or did you mean something else? More of a numbers game against the force and will of antagonistic hierarchical powers, or that in any given population what is the % that will dependably operate as anarchists rather than compromise and what happens when you start to include those that will compromise.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 23:38
|
|
|
Renaissance Robot posted:In the sense that anarchists naturally aren't going to deal well with the strict hierarchy etc that's sort of required for an effective fighting force, or did you mean something else? Except that a key component of successful guerilla warfare has for decades been the use of small-scale decentralised independent fighting forces that plan and execute operations on their own. Lord of the Llamas posted:Except that greedy and cruel people who attain power become the de facto state no matter what you call it. All the more reason to smash the state and keep smashing it until it stays smashed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 23:38
|
|
|
Lord of the Llamas posted:Except that greedy and cruel people who attain power become the de facto state no matter what you call it. That's why I said "explicitly".
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 23:39
|
|
|
Your ma is like an anarchist society, totally classless!
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 23:42
|
|
|
TomViolence posted:All the more reason to smash the state and keep smashing it until it stays smashed. I think you've missed the fundamental point I was trying to make. Given that power structures will always exist; a state is the only structure within which you can even hope to enforce fairness and accountability. Otherwise you're left with bullying? Nepotism? Cronyism? It's not easy but it seems like the only viable option to create any sort of robust fair society.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 23:46
|
|
|
TomViolence posted:The "human nature" non-argument gets tossed out a lot, but if you don't trust your fellow man to rule himself why on earth do you trust him to rule over others or pick others to rule over him? If "human nature" is as venal and hateful and greedy as people seem to believe, then anarchism cannot be any worse than the status quo in that regard. I mean strictly I don't trust that so my ideal government is one where I write a big book of rules that they aren't allowed to break.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 23:50
|
|
|
TomViolence posted:Anarchism is just a form of collective social organisation that rejects hierarchy. The idea that an anarchist society necessitates a power vacuum or a lawless and disordered situation where the strong prey upon the weak gets a lot of currency because people often fundamentally misunderstand what the world would look like without their masters. Anarchism is about the dissolution of arbitrary and harmful power structures, so a self-organised society of that type could still have a rule of law and even some form of the social contract, but one which has been radically revised. But some people were mean therefore everyone is mean and now I am a nihilist rear end in a top hat and a big dumb stupid???? - That guy who has it all worked out 2014 Be mean first before you get meaned! - That same guy 2016 More from him next year.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 23:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 15:46 |
|
|
Lord of the Llamas posted:I think you've missed the fundamental point I was trying to make. Given that power structures will always exist; a state is the only structure within which you can even hope to enforce fairness and accountability. Otherwise you're left with bullying? Nepotism? Cronyism? It's not easy but it seems like the only viable option to create any sort of robust fair society. The state as vehicle for fairness and accountability: our bulwark against bullying, nepotism and cronyism. With the best will in the world, I'm not sure I'm the one who's missed the point here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 23:53
|
|